Check the references. 1994 was a long time ago. W. Buckleitner
Historical Examination
of Research on
Technology and
Early Literacy
“Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology is Indistinguishable From Magic”
Arthur C. Clarke
CEP/TE 912
Psychology and Pedagogy of Literacy
Raphael
by
Warren Buckleitner
May, 1994
What
do flashmeters, magnetic sound track projectors (now known as tape recorders)
tachistoscopes, perceptoscopes,
EDL Controlled Readers, Writing to Read, and The Reader Rabbit, ... all
have in common? All these devices have been used to help children learn to read
and write over the past 40 years. The use of technology in literacy instruction
has a long history in theory, but only recently -- since the 1940’s,
really started to develop in practice. Like the chicken (instructional
technology) and the egg (industrial innovation), it has piggybacked
technological innovation of the times.
The
roots of using technology in learning go back to the Sophists of Greece
(500-410BC) whose teaching
methodology employed “systematic expression of the principal of shaping
the intellect.” The Sophist instructional procedures were inherently
systematic... the student knew what was expected, so this methodology led
naturally to a “programmed” style of instruction. A good discussion of the early
forerunners of instructional technology was found in the textbook A History
of Instructional Technology by Paul Saettler of Sacramento State
College (1968). This book covers
the role of influence of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Thorndike, Dewey, and Montessori, all of whom have had
an influence on forms of instructional technology. I was interested to learn
that Maria Montessori created the “Montessori
didactic apparatus; a block of wood with ten holes of different sizes; so that
learners could get instant feedback.” who, in 1907, Following Montessori, Sidney
Pressey, a psychologist at Ohio State exhibited a device that was the precursor
to the “Teaching Machine” revolution when he exhibited a device
with four multiple-choice questions with four keys. If the student thought the
second answer was correct, he pressed the second key, while a record of
progress was kept automatically.
During
the period from 1900 to 1950, however, technology “only washed lightly
upon the shores of instruction” (Saettler). In this same time span, when high speed printing
technicians, radio, sound motion
pictures, television, and other pieces of communication technology were
invented, developed, and exploited, reading teachers largely failed to apply
these devices in quantity to the instruction process. In this paper, I examine
three empirical studies, and three literature reviews or essays from the
post-World War II period concerning the use of technology in
the teaching of helping children become literate. In the process of doing this paper, I have come to realize
the breadth of this topic, and would ideally like to spend far more time
reviewing the research of each period. In light of time and length constraints,
however, I’ve done my best to find reports of work that capture the
thinking of the times.
Chart: The six reports
analyzed
|
Type of Technology |
Empirical Study |
Literature Review/Essay |
|
1940’s The first real applications of technology in teaching; in the form of mechanical devices, or “teaching machines.” (no extensive literature review available until the 1950’s) |
The Bexley Reading Study– Josephine H. MaClartchy, in collaboration with Renshaw, Educational Research Bulletin– Sept. 1946 |
A Critical Review of a Portion of The Literature on Teaching Devices --Douglas Porter, Harvard Educational Journal– 1957 |
|
1960’s Still
under the influence of Skinner’s (starting in 1954) teaching machines;
a closer look at the realistic use of teaching machines, and the dawning of
the microcomputer age. |
Autotelic Response Environments and Exceptional Children–O.K. Moore, Special Children in Century 21. Seattle, Wash., Special Child Publications– 1964 |
Teaching Machines and Reading Instruction --Edward Fry– The Reading Teacher– Sept. 1961 |
|
1980’s The microchip provides color graphics, bleepy sounds, and an interactive environment; resulting in many reading packages. Two looks at the same computer-based instructional program typical of the times: Writing to Read |
Evaluation of the Writing to Read Instructional System– R.T. Murphy & L.R. Appel. ETS, Princeton, NJ 1982-1984 |
The Importance of Being Rigorous: Research on Writing to Read– K.A. Krendle, & R.B. Williams, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction– 1990 |
The 1940’s
World
War II created an enormous instructional problem. Thousands of soldiers had to
be trained. The “visual-form training” method made use of a
projection device known as the tactistosope and was given to the navy cadets
(my father, for example) to help them quickly gain essential knowledge. It was
developed in part Samuel Renshaw of Ohio State, who’s efforts where
attributed to the greatly increased the efficiency of the aviators to recognize
enemy aircraft (my Father can still identify a plane by it’s shape from
the ground). His “flash learning” techniques were later adapted to
other parts of the military.
It was interesting to learn that
“visual-form” training started 5 years before the war was inspired
in part by a visit from a Polish mathematical prodigy to Ohio State who
displayed uncanny abilities to memorize numerical sequences.
“During
a demonstration, he gave an evening lecture, he drew 100 squares on the board
and divided it into 100 squares. Members of the audience filled in the squares
with random numbers. He then, with a quick glance at the figure, recite the
numbers in any order -- around the edges of the square, down the rows, and so
on.” (MacLatch 1946, p. 143).
Would
it be possible to foster this uncanny ability in children? Could this improve
the reading process? These were the questions of the times that led Renshaw to
the challenge of using his machines to develop children’s ability to see,
which was seen as a skill, like any habit. In other words, reading is a visual
experience, and that words are seen one “flash” at a time. If
children could handle more flashes, they would be better readers, it was
presumed.
THE BEXLEY READING STUDY
During
1944-45, five studies were conducted related to technology being adapted to the
reading instruction of early elementary children, according to the literature
reviewed, the best known of these being the Bexley study, primarily because of
the involvement of Renshaw. It is one of the best reports of an empirical
research effort during this period of time, with an excellent description of
the methodology, and discussion of implications. It was published in the Educational Research Bulletin, Sept.
16, 1946).
What
was most interesting to me in this study is that a variety of teaching techniques that were used, including the
tachistoscope, in the delivery of reading instruction. The study actually could
have been an inquiry into whole language pedagogy, if it were done in the 1990’s.
“The teachers in the first grade
started with the premise that reading was a visual experience. Therefore, since
we were going to introduce tachistoscopic training in February, we did not
dissipate the children’s
interest by teaching phonics. Our first problem was to develop a true
definition of reading for each child through his own reading. For this purpose,
we used experience stories. Before Christmas, the children were reading
ten to twenty pages daily in books which they had not read before. The first series used were stories about the
children’s own pets. The first stories were short, not more than two
short sentences. The intention was to keep the children from substituting
memorizing for reading. The objective was to simulate for the child the
reading experience of a competent adult reader... the adult read new material
to get new ideas. He re-reads only when he wishes to do so. (p 141).
Later in the year, the word-flash
technology was delivered using the
tachistoscopic (a device that hooks onto a slide or filmstrip projector
that which controls the time of the exposure, from 1/100th of a second to 1
second, as well as the area exposed). It was administered to the 121 first and
second graders in three, 20 minute sessions per week.
“Before
each slide was presented, a descriptive statement was made, such as “the
next word has 4 letters.” This was followed by the signal
“ready” an interval of 2 seconds “now” and second
interval of 2 seconds, which preceded the exposure of each slide. The children reproduce what they had
seen on the screen with paper and pencil immediately after the exposure. As the
training progressed, children learned to focus their attention for a short time
on the screen and then to relax until the signal was again given. During the 16
weeks of practice, the quietness in the room was remarkable. Many of the
children learned to acquiesce, which is on of the essential characteristics of
all learning. One six-year-old boy phrased it as follows when he exclaimed
quite unexpectedly on morning: “I look very carefully. Then I just write
any old letter, and I’m generally right.” He was generally right,
for in correctness in reproducing the slides his record was one of the highest
among those of the 120 children in the study.” (p. 148)
The
curriculum had significant effects, according to the report: “the children making unusual
progress during these four months.” There evidence was a normed test, the
Gates Primary Reading Test. The children scored 6 to 8 months beyond the school
level, and the average scores of the 114 children are more than 1/2 year in
word meaning, and almost a year in paragraph meanings, beyond their school
placement. Their conclusion:
The
evidence is clear and unambiguous: children who have had adequate
tachistoscopic training in the first grade read more fluently and
understandingly, show distinctly great skill in number work, exhibit a grater
range in number work, exhibit a greater range in observational thinking, in are
work, and son on, than children o equal native ability, under teacher of equal
competency in the same curriculum, who have not had this form of visual
perceptual training, ....Tachistoxpoic training will make achievement greater, imbue the pupil with the
feeling of mastery or aesthetic gratification which accompanies the growth of
competency and set the course of sound mental habits, which, if continued in
subsequent grades, may prevent the waste of failures or indifferent
achievement.” (Renchaw)
It
is important to consider the possibility of a major confounding variable in the study, however, in that two
innovative techniques were used: exposure to realistic and meaningful
literature and the tachistoscopic training (which was also used for math). So
we don’t know if the gains reported in the study are due to the exposure
to the interesting books or the technology. (Whole language advocates looking
at this study in today’s research climate would be quick to point this
out).
LITERATURE REVIEW IN THE 40’S -60’s
In
1954, B.F. Skinner published his paper that launched the teaching machine
revolution. Unlike the earlier tactistoscopes, these machines were interactive,
and brought with them a firm educational philosophy; that of behaviorism.
Before the 1960 research on the effects of the machines were hard to find. “More than three-fourths of
all the research on programmed instruction has been undertaken since
1960” This written in 1966! One
of the earliest reviews I could find was by Douglas Porter, from the Harvard
Educational Journal (Vol. 27, No. 2, 1957), which among other things, lists an
alphabetical listing of types of devices used in instruction, along with a classification
of them by types. Porter reports
“a search of the literature has revealed no other review covering such a
wide scope of devices.” He classifies the devices by stimulus devices
(motion picture, TV, phonograph, opaque projector) response devices (galvanic
skin response indicator, automatic test corer, alertness indicator), and
Stimulus-response devices (tachistoscope, reading films, reading accelerators,
and memory drum). I found this to be a useful categorization of the different
technologies being attempted in instruction up to the late 50’s. In
addition, Porter looks at 29 different studies that have been done on the
effects of the range of devices, and digs up a patchwork of claims. He
summarizes the research in terms such as Theoretical issues, Curriculum, and Acceptance of Mechanical
Teaching Devices. Not surprisingly,
most of the research covered shows that the technology was a superior, more
efficient mode of teaching, as measure by test scores on the content taught,
when compared with “traditional” instruction. What I found most
interesting was his summarization of the acceptance or lack of acceptance
of this technology in the classroom.
“In
general, the elaborate mechanical devices should be regarded as a last resort
to be used when other methods have failed. Instruments .... are not a
substitute for a good teacher. Audio-visual devices can an d should, from time
to time, be used in the classroom but their proper place is in the language
laboratory. Many teachers who believe in the oral approach justly feel that
they could get better results if they were given smaller classes and more hours
per class rather than more machines” (page 131).
After
reading this review, I was frustrated,
in that it did not deal directly with literature on the study of
technology in literacy instruction before
the 1950’s. One can conclude that, for the most part, there was a
reluctance to adapt these machines in practice; while the teaching machine
revolution that was going on in industry and other fields. The earliest more
“global” commentary or review
I was able to find was an essay that appeared in The Reading Teacher (September 1961) by Edward Fry, the director of the
Reading Clinic at Loyola University. Entitled “Teaching Machines and
Reading Instruction” it provides a glimpse of some of the issues going on
as a result of the teaching machine revolution, and how the literacy community
was responding. This article was effective at providing one side of the debates
that must have been going on (and that is still going on)
essentially divisions between behaviorists and humanists; and teaching machine
advocates and those favoring “traditional methods.” Fry states that “a teaching
machine is more a methodology than a piece of hardware.” It appears that
in most peoples thinking, teaching machines were synonymous with behaviorism.
Fry is clearly a proponent of this technology, and provides some rationale for
it’s use in his essay, as he tries to convince the conservative body of
teachers that teaching machines are a better way of helping children learn.
Later he provides an example of what he means by “teaching
machine.”
“The
student reads a question and then responds by writing the brief answer on a
piece of tape exposed by the machine. He moves a lever which simultaneously
exposes the answer to the question and covers his written answer with a sheet
of glass. The student scores himself right or wrong and moves the lever which
presents the next item. Each item is carefully sequenced so that the question
sand bits of information are presented step by small step and lead the student
toward the desired learning goal.”
Clearly
this is a behaviorist stance on learning. Fry states later that teaching
machines present information in small units, the student gets instant feedback,
and the material is carefully sequenced. He states that
•
Reading comprehension is a natural for machines that require students to answer
question based on reading a prescribed passage.
•
Phonics can be taught to the very young
•
Context clues can be taught by having the student supply the missing word in a
sentence.
•
Reading readiness pictures can be shown under transparent keys.
•
More advance word attack skills
He
enthusiastically claims that teaching machines can teach almost anyone anything
-- he cites these as examples “Elementary Spelling, English, Golf,
Statistics (I could’ve used that!), English Grammar, and even Molecular Theory for First Graders!
It is interesting to contrast this with the quote I found from Bruner
(1963) “any subject matter
can be taught to anybody at any age in some form that is honest.”
Fry
predicts that “if teaching machines catch on, probably many major
publishers of textbooks will be developing teaching machine programs, both as
the chief source of instruction and as supplementary material to more
traditional textbook and classroom presentations.” He tries to reassure
teachers that they will not be replaced by automation -- rather “the
machine will relieve hours of drudgery of correcting students’
papers.”
The 1960’s: An Innovative Researcher, or a Quack?
One
innovator in using technology in literacy was O.K. Moore, who designed an
instructional setting with the intention to teach preschoolers, some as young
as 2, to read and type. While his empirical work is rarely cited, and as it
turns out, he may have been a bit of a quack, his name does seem to come up in
conversations of educational technology.
One
of Moore’s primary contributions was the use of technology in a non-didactive
manner (unlike the “teaching machine” mentality). In teaching
children to read, Moor had them strike the keys of a computer-based electric
typewriter at their own will. The typewriter was engineered so that the a voice
would say the name of the letter pressed by the child. Thus, as the child sees
the letter struck, he hears the name of the letter from an auditory response
within the system.
According
to Patrick Dickson, on the day of an important demonstration of his system to
the press, his voice generator broke down and he had an actor climb inside of a
box to fake the voice. After a period of free exploration on the keyboard,
further programmed instruction would start to tell the child what letter to
strike. By keeping all keys except the named one fixed, the electronic teacher
gradually “teaches the child the location of the keys on the entire
keyboard.” By means of additional programming, the child is able to take
dictation from the computer, pressing keys and forming words and sentence with
little error.
As
a result of Moore’s efforts, he claimed that children who used his machine could enter the first grade
with a fourth-grade reading ability.
In addition, he claimed,
the child’s motor dexterity and control of 6 year old children, as
reflected in their writing, was like that typical of seven- and
eight-year-olds.
Moores
programmed instruction approach holds challenging implications -- however his
data his empirical evidence is sketchy at best (with no mention of how many
children he worked with or how long the effects lasted). In hindsight, it is
highly unlikely that one activity could have had such dramatic results in light
of the talking word processors available today. It is not surprising that it is difficult to
find any mention of Moore’s
and none of his work appeared in scholarly journals.
1980’s The Microcomputer
At
the end of the 1970’s the Commodore PET and Apple II were released,
changing the future of educational teaching machines for ever. Now, the ideas
of O.K. Moore and B.F. Skinner could re-emerge in the form of much less
expensive software designed for these machines. Software came on the market
based on a mastery learning model, providing reinforcement in the form of smile
faces or even a short time with a arcade game (e.g., The Reading Machine by
SouthWest EsPsych Publishing interjects 5 minutes of successful word
recognition with 1 minute of “star blasting”). One can only wonder what Skinner
would do with this technology; actually, one can pretty much guess what he
would do.
Software
of the times reflected the current thinking of educational psychology -- with a
wide range of mastery learning based early learning software packages
introduced onto the market. At the same time, constructivists such as Papert, a
student of Piaget, armed themselves
with their own brands of software; choosing LOGO (of which there is a wide
range of research and empirical studies), or clever games such as
“Gertrudes’s Secrets” in which games of logic where hidden in
a castle, which children could informally discover.
WRITING TO READ
One
of the most dramatic examples of the use of technology in the delivery of early
reading instruction is IBM’s Writing to Read (WTR)
program, first introduced in 1983.
The WTR program centers on the formation of letters and words, phonetic
spelling, structured use of word processors and typewriters, and creative
expression of written ideas. In
all, there were 27 research reports I could find studying the effects of the
program, summarized in the literature review “The Importance of Being
Rigorous: Research on Writing to Read.” Among these is the highly
controversial ETS study, which found “significant gains due to the WT
program” compared to traditional instruction. This study, commissioned by
IBM, looked at 10,000 students who used WTR. “WTR children wrote better
and progressed faster than the national norm samples on standardized reading
tests” was the conclusion.
This
research was key in the decision make substantial investments in computer labs
in schools. For example, two entire states, Mississippi and West Virginia
adapted the approach for any elementary school who requested it. To this date,
many children go down the hall for an hour of Writing to Read.
While
the ETS study looked at a large group of students, the data was taken from a
smaller group of “core” of 800 students. The achievement measures
for these students included standardized reading tests, writing samples
selected by individual teachers (not randomly collected), and spelling words.
The researchers reported that kindergarten students performed significantly
better on the tests than their peers in the non-WTR classrooms. I was
interested to find that
“significant effects” gradually dropped as time went on. In
other words, shortly after the release of the program in 1982 and 1983, there
was a larger number of studies reporting significant gains of the program.
Toward the end of the 80’s,
there was far less activity, and no activity of the program in the 90’s.
WTR seems to be a trend that had a 6 year life and then faded, along with the
tachistoscope.
I
found the literature review on the WTR research to be extremely interesting and
insightful as a critical look at methodology in generally. The authors were effective in applying
solid research criteria to the studies of the earlier 8 years, and help to put
the whole issue into perspective. They show how the WTR labs typically have 3
or 4 teachers per 15 children, compared to 1 per 25 ration of the control
groups, and that none of the studies accounted for the novelty effect of the
microcomputer itself -- far more likely to be a factor in the early
1980’s (e.g., they do not
look at other microcomputer-based courseware and compare it to WTR). Other
potential confounding variables could be that WTR is a supplement to regular reading instruction so that many of the children involved
in the studies, in reality were receiving a double dose of reading time (WTR +
their regular reading program). Also raised in this review is that none of the
studies have looked at anything other than short term outcomes on test scores.
They conclude “the lack of consideration of such obvious confounding
factors raises serious questions about the validity of the positive influences
attributed to Writing to Read by some of its evaluators.” (p. 82)
The
field of instructional technology has changed tremendously since the
1940’s. It will be interesting to see where the next 40 years takes us.
REFERENCES
Fry, E., (1961). Teaching
Machines and Reading Instruction, The Reading Teacher Vol. 15: 43-5
Krendle, K.A., &
Williams, R.B., (1990). The importance of being rigorous: Research on Writing
to Read Journal of Computer-Based Instruction Summer 1990, Vol. 17, No. 3 81-86
MacLatchy, J.H. (1946).
Bexley Reading Study, Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 6
Moore, O.K. (1964). Autotelic
Response Environments and Exceptional Children. Special Children in Century 21. , Special Child
Publications, Seattle, Wash.
Murphy, R.T., & Appel,
L.R. (1984). Evaluation of the Writing to Read instructional system: 1982-1984.
(Second Year Report). Princeton, NJ: ETS
Porter, D. (1958). Teaching
Machines, Harvard Graduate School of Education Association Bulletin, Vol. 3
Saettle, P., (1968) A History
of Instructional Technology McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, USA